Monday, 26 May 2014

Who really controls the levers of power? The COAL-ition or the COAL-industry?

Giles Parkinson 27 May 2014, 7:30am 0

Business Energy Environment Mining Politics Satire

**(Image by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au)**

Who really controls the levers of power in Australia? The COAL-ition government or the COAL-industry? RenewEconomy's Giles Parkinson looks at Big Coal's hypothetical (?) "to-do" list.

JUST IMAGINE if Australia elected a government owned and operated by
the coal industry and other fossil fuel interests – a COAL-ition, if you
will – and gave it carte blanche to implement the policies that would
best service its interests.

Where would it start?

Well, it would probably identify its weak spots and do something
about it. So it would need to ensure that any independent advisory
bodies were singing from the same songbook.

It would have to do something about the fact that demand is falling for its products.

It would need to eliminate its competition.

It would have to drop any market signals that worked against its
interests, and it would need to remove environmental controls, and
ensure that public debate was neutered and that the majority of media
were aligned with their interests and ideology.

Having drawn up the major points of a master plan, it would need to leap into action.

We managed to find a copy of their “to-do” list.

Energy efficiency

Look, the first thing we need to do is prop up demand.

Despite all the best predictions, demand has actually been falling for the past five years, and it’s been eating into profits. The International Energy Agency reckons energy efficiency is one of the tools to use to address soaring CO2 emissions. And so do the U.S. and China.

But that also means less demand for electricity generation, and climate science is crap anyway, there isn’t a problem to address.

So, we need to start by unwinding the state-based energy efficiency programs, with the help of the COAL-ition state governments, and drop the national scheme that encouraged such nonsense, the Energy Efficiency Opportunity program.

Then we have to bury the energy efficiency task-force recommendations deeper into the bottom draw. It might save consumers money, but it does bugger all for fossil fuel profits.

Rooftop Solar

All smiles for solar - pre election! — **All smiles for solar .... pre-election!**

So, whoever came up with this silly million solar roofs
idea better shut up about it right now. We don’t want to encourage this
stuff. And let’s see if we can’t slow down rooftop solar by dumping the small scale certificates.

And while we are at it, we should encourage some of our members to reject some solar installation requests, force others to downsize, disallow any exports, threaten them with big connection costs, impose higher fixed charges.

And if the bastards want to leave the grid, then we will charge them for that too.

The other thing eating into demand is rooftop solar. And the bloody things are doing it in the middle of the day, when the generators used to be able to switch on the gas and diesel generators and push up the price of electricity 10-fold.

There’s not a lot of solar, but it’s taking all that cream we built into the business models. Cripes, their debt financing depended on it.

Renewable energy target

The next thing to do is eliminate competition. The coal boys have made clear that wind is forcing down the price of electricity, and if there is any more wind and solar, the coal boilers are going to be shut down so long they will start to go rusty.

And the gas boys are having enough trouble with gas prices trebling, and even their baseload generators have to be turned into peaking plants.

So we need another review and we need an outcome. Last time the RET was dumped even when an independent report said the best idea was to keep it going.

This time, though, we can’t risk confused messages. So let's load the dice and get someone who agrees the science is crap and
maybe reckons that nuclear is probably the best solution — that’ll give
us another 10-15 years of coal production before they realize how expensive that is.

And you better get a couple of fossil fuel lobbyists on the panel too, and that modeling group that EnergyAustralia used to warn that the lights would go out if we had too much of this green energy crap.

And the good thing is we don’t need to hurry on this one, because just having a review will stop new investment anyway.

Get them to hold the consultations in camera and throw the findings into the Energy White Paper. That’ll take ages to finish.

Emerging technologies

Look, it’s not just wind energy we’ve got to worry about. It’s all that big solar PV, and solar thermal thingies that they are building in the US, South
America, the Middle East, Europe, China, Japan, India and even in
Africa, that’s going to cause a problem too. They reckon it’s already
cheaper than gas.

And if those solar tower thingies with storage catch on, well, the only thing standing between us and oblivion will be the regulators and the shock-jocks.

So we better cut funding for CSIRO alternative fuels research, get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency before they get the costs of these new technologies down even further and the banks start getting big ideas.

I mean, even Macquarie Group is thinking about funding solar now, and if Rio Tinto realizes that solar is cheaper than diesel, then that profitable little sideline will be well and truly gone.

And don’t get me started on storage, geothermal and wave energy. I mean, imagine if they start using baseload and renewables in the same sentence.

Carbon price

Of course, we have got to axe the tax. That’s a great line we borrowed from the Canadians.

The transaction costs alone should turn most people off the idea, and the bankers won’t have a bar of it.

And just to be sure, we better make sure we cut the funds. Come
up with a silly name like Direct Action, or something. That will
confuse them, and find someone who can pretend we accept the science.

Look, if the carbon price stays and companies are encouraged to
factor it into their business models and investment decisions, there
will be hell to pay.

Better to set up some fund, so that these jokers with some do-good
projects have to put together a big package and submit it for review by a
bunch of public servants.

Of course, we have got to axe the tax. That’s a great line we borrowed from the Canadians.

Look, if the carbon price stays and companies are encouraged to
factor it into their business models and investment decisions, there
will be hell to pay.

Better to set up some fund, so that these jokers with some do-good
projects have to put together a big package and submit it for review by a
bunch of public servants.

Covering all bases

Look, there are a few other things we need to think about to cover our bases.

David Suzuki responds to Australian PM Abbott's decision to abolish Climate Change Commission

We don’t to foster too much informed debate, so best to get rid of the Climate Commission and the Climate Change Authority, get rid of a couple of hundred scientists at the CSIRO and put a bomb through the department of Environment.

We mustn’t allow any international agreements to get too far down the track, so let’s make sure our boys are throwing the spanner in the works at the UNFCCC.

We got to do something about this ACT government plan too. They want to build wind turbines and solar stuff –
and they will probably do it cheaply too. It will make the rest of the
country look backward. Might have to get some of the senior boys to
compare turbines to mushrooms, people will think poison. And maybe call them hideous, or offensive or something.

This divestment thing
could be a problem. And we’ve got a banking inquiry, which is supposed
to look at systemic risks and all that do-gooder mumbo jumbo, so let’s
make sure there is someone who can rubbish the science and keep control of things.

While we are at it, better to have someone in the key business advisory position too. If
too many business people start talking about climate change, emissions
control, supply chains, and international trade, we’re just not going to
be able to get our agenda through.

The environmental changes are good too. Giving environmental controls back to the states (Camo and Bazza are already competing to be the coal state – can we get them on number plates, sunshine state sends all the wrong messaging).

Let’s suggest we allow the dredging, this environmental offset stuff doesn’t have to be scrutinized too closely, and maybe we can even give a royalty holiday to allow some of those coal projects to go ahead. Their finances are looking dodgy, but if we get them started, they’ll be hard to stop.

And while we are on environmental stuff, could someone please stop
these silly requirements to make houses efficient. We need the heaters
and the air-con to be running full bore to make a quid.

And, look, let’s make sure we got the media covered. Most of the
tabloids will publish anything as long we give them a day’s break.

So if there’s another report on rising prices due to network costs or soaring gas prices, give them a heads up and blame it on green energy. They’ll never read the actual reports.

And lets make sure the IPA boys and all those in their orbit are included every policy on discussion
panel on radio and TV. Even the ABC. We just can’t allow people to have
sensible conversations about this stuff. You never know where it will
lead to.

So much to do, such a small mandate, and so little time.

Look, Deutsche Bank has pulled funding from the Abbot Point port development! Somebody do something!

(Editor’s note: We should point out that any similarity to actual
events is entirely coincidental. Surely, that could never happen in
Australia? What? Oh.)

(This article appeared in RenewEconomy on 23 May 2014. Also read deputy editor Sandi Keane’s ‘The fossil fuel industry and who really runs Australia’)

MP likens Australian Parliament to Hogwarts

BRONWYN BISHOP aka DOLORES UMBRIDGE DESTROYING THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

Advice for Smilin' Joe and Sado-Morrison

Bob Ellis 26 May 2014, 8:00pm 16

Economics New Australians Politics

Wealthy, smirking Joe Hockey and smug, snarling Scott Morrison are treading the well-worn path to evil; Bob Ellis has some questions and counsel for both men.

Joe won the race to Evil in about sixty hours.

He passed Affable Smiling Boofhead and Misguided Market
Fundamentalist and Courageous World Statesman in the first day and by
the time he said ‘one-third of a packet of cigarettes’ and was seen smoking a cigar with Dracula, he’d usurped Satan himself.

There’s no way back from Evil, as Richard Nixon found, and Rolf Harris may soon. It’s a line you should not cross. There is no way back from Evil, Joe. Trust me.

Some tips for your next life.

If you’re hurting everybody at a time of semi-wartime emergency don’t smile as you say you are. Churchill saying "blood, toil, tears and sweat" was not wreathed in smiles.

If you are calling for sacrifice, do not charge anybody $22,000 to hear you talk about it and not spend the money on healing lepers. If you own two farms and four houses,
do not talk about ‘the age of entitlement’ applying to old sick women
seeing a doctor for free. Sell one of the houses, and donate the money
to diabetes research and say you are doing this.

Another good idea would be not to massacre the CSIRO, which wins Nobel Prizes, and give $20 billion
for ‘medical research’ to your dodgy mates. The CSIRO and the
universities are finding a cure for cancer already, and should be given
more, not less, billions to achieve that end.

Will Australia have the biggest medical research fund in the world?

Don’t say to an old woman:

You’ll be paying up big every time you get sick, but, hey,
fifteen years after you’re dead there’ll be a cure for cancer, thanks to
your sacrifice.

The last tip for Joe is, next time round, study up on Australia.

Learn why to Australians Holden, Qantas, the Goulburn Valley and the
Tasmanian forests mean something, and your dog-eat-dog philosophy means
less to them than it does to you.

Learn that changing a whole society’s way of thinking needs more than
the will to do it. Learn that a society built on land grants for
convicted criminals and the phrase ‘a fair go’ is different from one
whose guiding rule is ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’.

Above all, do not smile while ordering young people to leave
their home towns and clean city lavatories or do phone sex for fifty
cents a minute or else. Realise how evil you look. Next time round.

In the meantime, enjoy your over-entitled retirement and its millions and prepare for a trial by ICAC.

And try to remember while testifying — don’t smile.

*****

Scott Morrison releases report into Manus Island detention centre riot & death of Reza Berati

The wild-eyed foam-flecked sado-heathenist Scott Morrison’s contention that he has stopped the boats needs examination.

He’s certainly stopped some boats, though he won’t say how many. He’s
certainly people-smuggled some weeping mothers and their newborn babies
and shocked young husbands and mothers-in-law back to Indonesia which
doesn’t want them, and has done this illegally, offending the UN and all
the nations in our region.

But has he stopped other boats, that go by a different route, into
beaches north or south of Broome? I ask this because of the failure of
many countries, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, to find a
big plane in the same obscure dark lightning-smitten seas in three long
months. I doubt if the Border Protection mercenaries even look there.

I ask him now which Salvation Island worker killed Reza Barati,
and how long he reported for work after dropping a rock on his head,
and how long Morrison paid him, and if he is now in custody, and if he
will, according to local custom, suffer capital punishment and when.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Time to end Tony Abbott’s deceitful debt scare campaign « The Australian Independent Media Network

Time to end Tony Abbott’s deceitful debt scare campaign

By Matthew Donovan on May 26, 2014 • ( 3 )

Image courtesy of theaustralian.com.au

Let’s get real here and start talking facts. Cold hard incontrovertible facts.

I have already outlined the truth of the situation in, Facts speak for themselves, Australia still lucky country. Now to get into the details.

$44 billion worth of net assets were inherited by the Labor Government in 2007 from John Howard’s Liberal Government.

This is after a strong period of economic growth and private investment following the dot com crash, from 2002 to 2007. Not to mention, ever surging commodity prices and resources demand, mainly from a booming China.

$70 billion of government owned assets were sold off under by Treasurer Costello, most of them at bargain basement rates. Incidentally, as an aside, he now wants the Queensland Government to engage in such reckless practices.

This means the net assets on the books (63% of the overall
cash generated from asset sales) were as a result of selling our assets,
without a mandate, for much less than they would now be worth if they
had been retained.

Almost every other benefit from the mining boom was squandered, as
there was abysmal investment in education, health, infrastructure
and productivity over 11 ½ years of Coalition rule.

The IMF (International Monetary Fund) recently stated Howard was the most profligate Australian Prime Minister in history. If you take issue with that statement, talk to the experts.

Howard was defeated when there were very few signs of the credit crunch and GFC in evidence.

Since Labor came to power in late 2007, there has been $160 billion
in tax receipt write-downs as a result of a weaker global economy.

Between 2004 to 2007 the Howard Government saw $334 billion of upward
revisions yet still under invested in crucial sectors and sold off
public assets.

Every developed nation entered recession . . . except for Australia that is.

Image courtesy of the Australian Labor Party

Australia took decisive action to stem the impacts of the GFC on jobs
and economic growth. The economy is now at trend growth and 926,000
jobs have been created since the GFC. An outstanding result no matter
how you slice it.

This meant stimulating the economy with a significant stimulus
package of around $52 billion (3% of GDP in today’s terms). A response
that was heralded as a model targeted and effective response by the IMF,
OECD and World Bank. The OECD praised the package stating it would save 200,000 jobs.

World experts such as Nobel Prize laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz also said the stimulus “served Australia well“.

Without this stimulus, as the world was sinking into a crisis, growth
in Australia would have stalled and unemployment would have spiked
above 8% leading to a prolonged period of economic hardship for many
Australians.

Australia chose to support jobs and growth and to maintain levels of
spending in order to support services for the Australian people.

To maintain surpluses over the GFC period – as some in the Coalition seem to suggest Labor should have done – would have been irresponsible.

The
Liberal Party’s attempt at a counter graphic with no mention of the
context of the GFC or that $150B is close to the amount tax receipts
have dropped off.

It would have led to the requirement to unleash austerity on all
Australians at the worst possible time in the last 80 or so years since
the Great Depression.

Cuts would have been in the realm of $32 billion a year over the last five years. That is 2% of GDP annually, in today’s terms.

This kind of program would have put Campbell Newman to shame and led to further hurt in the Australian community.

The other major contributor to our debt position is the $37.5 billion
investment in the NBN. Broadband was an area Howard neglected for his
entire term in office.

He didn’t understand that this expenditure is an investment in our
future; an asset, not an expense. It will create jobs and growth.

Tony Abbott admits he doesn’t understand broadband either:

The remainder of our gross debt is about $50.5 billion over five years. This is equal to 0.6% of GDP each year in today’s terms.

The numbers sound big, but in the context of our almost $1.6T
trillion economy, they are small. The Coalition try to take interest
payments and debt out of the wider context because they are large by
historical standards. However, to do this without reference to the wider
economy, the global scenario and the GFC is just plain deceptive.

They know it too.

I ask you to look at how much debt you personally carry on credit
cards and in car and home loans. I can tell you right now it will be
more than 10% of your household income (on a net basis). In fact, private debt is a much greater issue than public debt.

Respected economist Stephen Koukoulas called out the scare campaign recently in an e-mail to Labor members and supporters.

Australia has a AAA credit rating from all three major ratings
agencies. If we were in such a bad fiscal state we would not only not be
one of only seven countries with that honour but we wouldn’t be the
only one with a Stable rating from all three. Under Howard and
Costello’s so called “Golden Age” this was never achieved and to do it during such turmoil must be acknowledged.

Another
graphic showing the growth in the Australian economy compared to
others. Now at somewhere in the range of 15% since the GFC. (Courtesy of
Independent Australia).

This was only recently reinforced by Fitch when they affirmed their AAA rating for our economy.

A point only further underlined by Dun and Bradstreet’s recent release entitled Australian economy ranked among world’s safest, in which it says:

Solid GDP growth, relative to other
developed economies, contributes to Australia’s status as one of the
world’s safest trade destinations. Likewise, the nation’s unemployment
rate is low, and its annual average inflation remains within the Reserve
Bank’s target band. Terms of trade at historical highs and solid
commodity prices have also helped Australia avoid much of the turbulence
experienced within other advanced economies.

It continues:

Australia’s relative economic strength,
which is supported by the country’s mining boom, and its comparatively
limited exposure to European markets are key reasons for the nation’s
ranking as one of the most attractive trade and investment destinations
globally.

This is the reality Tony Abbott and the Coalition want hidden from
view. However just because you repeat it, getting louder and louder each
time, doesn’t make it true.

Abbott’s deceptions and flat out lies on the economy are even more
mind blowing when one considers he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford and
studied, of all things, economics at the University of Sydney during
which he commenced his much fabled entry into student politics.

Former Treasurer Peter Costello has himself, in private conversations, been reported as calling the man that wants be our Prime Minister an “economic illiterate.”

Time we got real.

This government has to invest in your future, your jobs and your country.

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Just ask Queenslanders.

(NB: This article rounds our gross debt up to $300B. So in fact our position is currently actually better than presented).

This article was first published on Independent Australia.

Sunday, 25 May 2014

Grattan on Friday: Budget blues as government reels under the blows

23 May 2014, 6.21am AEST

Grattan on Friday: Budget blues as government reels under the blows

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has made a few embarrassing mistakes in a week set aside for selling the budget.
AAP/Rob Blakers

How bad has this budget been for the government? You only
had to listen Nine’s Today program on Thursday morning to get the
answer.

“Will you make it to the next election as leader?” Abbott was asked
by Karl Stefanovic. “I expect so,” the Prime Minister replied. “I think
the Australian people are sick of governments which change their leaders
mid-term.”

To have the durability of Abbott’s leadership a topic of discussion
well short of the first anniversary of his election would have seemed
inconceivable when he swept into office last September.

Abbott, Treasurer Joe Hockey and other ministers have been out in the
traditional post budget “sell” these past days, but things actually
look much worse for the government now than they did a week ago.

Abbott had another, viral, “Tony moment” with his wink
when a pensioner said she worked on a sex call line because she needed
the money (one political source says he often winks in a quite
disconcerting manner). Confusion about individual budget measures has
not receded but increased, and Abbott didn’t help by fluffing a couple
of details. The backlash has intensified rather than subsided. And all
that’s before the horse trading with the Senate begins.

In Coalition ranks some admit the budget was disproportionate to the
size of the fiscal problem - which the government exaggerated anyway.

Members of the public haven’t bought the “crisis” talk, and as their
individual circumstances become clearer many are horrified at what they
will lose.

The budget is seen as harsh rather than just tough; the real sting,
coming through strongly in polling, is that it is regarded as unfair.

Some government MPs had thought people might have accepted that the
medicine had to be swallowed (they’d accepted the line themselves) and
so are surprised by the intensity of the anger.

The budget has been sold poorly but its deeper problem involves the judgement (or lack of) that went into it.

The tone has jarred. In retrospect one has to ask whether the “age of
entitlement” language – which reflects Joe Hockey’s philosophy, which
turned into his mission and his passion – has been counterproductive.

It is one thing to say to people that when the budget requires repair
their benefits need to be trimmed, or that pensions can’t increased so
fast.

But declarations about having to end “the age of entitlement” carry
pejorative overtones; it sounds like voters are being condemned in some
moral sense for accepting handouts. In fact the middle class largesse in
family payments and the like reflected the view of John Howard (whose
cabinet contained Hockey and Abbott) that assistance should be provided
to people for the cost of children.

Too much money was splashed, but would Hockey have done better to have nuanced the rhetoric of the turnaround?

Then, however, he would not have been able to make his point with the drama he wanted.

If the budget had limited its targets and aimed at them a little more gently, the government would be in a better place.

But Hockey was on a crusade and Abbott signed up to it. Just why the
Prime Minister did so to such a degree isn’t entirely obvious. A glance
at Battlelines reminds that his present stance on issues such as
federalism and family payments are quite different to his past ones.

Changing circumstances don’t explain everything. Abbott might have
chosen to be where many of his Liberal colleagues are or had a genuine
ideological makeover.

When he embraces positions he espouses them with the fervour of the
convert, one explanation for his willingness to walk over the blazing
coals of his broken promises, sustaining burns that will scar.

Late this week, the government got whacks from David Gonski over its approach to school funding and from the Australian Medical Association over the harm the co-payment could do to the disadvantaged.

The AMA said some instances were being reported where the
announcement effect (the co-payment isn’t to start until mid next year)
had put people off going to the doctor.

Meanwhile the states' rage about the funding squeeze on their money
for schools and hospitals continues, while students revolt against the
higher education changes.

How does the government begin to climb out of the hole it’s in? Some
within it say it must just stick to the messages about debt and deficit.
Perhaps - but there is no reason to believe people will buy them. They
may have already decided it is false advertising.

There might be some room for selective tinkering, for example more protection for the vulnerable on the co-payment.

But to have any rethink on pensions for example, where the changes
come after the next election, would produce more problems, going against
what the government says is vital – to make the system sustainable long
term. The pension measures sit there like a time bomb for the 2016
election.

Inevitably some changes will be made to various measures in the
Senate negotiations. Those battles – in many cases with Clive Palmer –
will guarantee the pain of individual items will continue to get maximum
publicity.

The government’s hope that eventually the public will be impressed
enough with its performance to forgive and forget looks, at least at
this moment, excessively optimistic.

There are too many nasties in the pipeline, cutting in later this
term, or looming as election issues. Also the premiers, especially the
three Liberals with elections coming, are likely to continue unloading
on the government. And Abbott’s limitations as an incumbent - as
distinct from an opposition leader – exposed this week raise doubts
about how well he can conduct a fightback.

The messages from the last few days are very much about Abbott. He
obviously did not run a “reality test” on the budget. He was accident
prone when in a corner. He has less authority than a leader would want,
facing an ambitious agenda.

And as a Liberal backbencher noted: “There’s a kind of feeling he’s not John Howard, in terms of judging the [public] mood”.

Listen to Michelle Grattan’s newest podcast, with ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, here.

Saturday, 24 May 2014

GP Co-Payment: Policy Analysis « The Australian Independent Media Network

GP Co-Payment: Policy Analysis

By Victoria Rollison on May 25, 2014 • ( 0 )

Even Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey seem confused
about their Great. Big. New. Tax on doctor’s visits, as announced in
their horror budget two weeks ago. It’s still not clear exactly how this
policy will be applied and who it will be applied to. While the
government who introduced the tax go back to the drawing board to try to
work out how it actually works, I thought it might be useful to do some
policy analysis of my own, by interviewing my brother-in-law. I know
this is a radical idea and one Abbott and his government clearly haven’t
considered, but let’s throw in some facts from an expert. My
brother-in-law can provide these facts in an expert manner since he is a
GP:

Peter Dutton has said he decided the government should introduce the Medicare co-payment while visiting his doctor.
Dutton explained that people should contribute to visits to a GP
because this would make the health care system more financially
sustainable. This doesn’t strike me as a consultative policy analysis
process. If Dutton had chosen to investigate the effect of this policy
in a more consultative way, who should he have spoken to?

Changes to the Medicare architecture should be undertaken through
liaison between the Department of Health, the AMA [Australian Medical
Association], the College of General Practice and State Health
Departments.

As a practicing GP, what is your opinion of the Abbott government’s proposed Medicare $7 GP co-payment policy?

The proposed Medicare co-payment and its associated changes to
Medicare have the potential to be very destructive to patient care for a
couple of reasons.

Firstly, it will deter people from discussing minor symptoms that
they have with their GP, which often are a warning sign of more serious
illness. This can lead to patients presenting with more advanced or
severe disease, which may ultimately present a higher cost burden for
the government.

Secondly, the capacity for general practices to be flexible in their
billing to patients with limited financial resources is significantly
reduced under the proposed changes.

Thirdly, hospital emergency departments will see a major increase in
the volume of people with minor ailments presenting for care. Already,
approximately 30% of patients presenting to an emergency department are
non-urgent or semi-urgent conditions that could be managed in a GP
setting. I suspect this proportion will increase significantly after the
introduction of the co-payment.

Finally, the co-payment may influence doctors to manage their
patients in a less-than-ideal manner, as GP’s may try to protect their
patient from additional fees. For example, the GP may not undertake a
planned review of an infected wound the next day to see if the
antibiotics are helping. Or the GP may defer referring the patient for
pathology tests that might have picked up the serious electrolyte
abnormality. There is a significant potential for the quality of care to
deteriorate.

What influence will the $7 Medicare GP co-payment have on the
total price GPs will need to charge their patients rather than
bulk-billing? Will there be an administration fee charged on top of the
$7 fee?

This will vary depending on the way the practice currently bills.
Some practices charge all patients a fee with a gap. The proposed
Medicare changes will reduce the amount that patients get as a rebate
and they will therefore have a larger gap (however, the co-payment
per-se won’t be paid).

It is practices that bulk-bill patients who will see the most impact.
For example, a general practitioner that chooses to bulk-bill a
pensioner for a standard consult will have a 24% decrease in their
income for that patient, and if they charge the co-payment without an
additional fee on top, then their income will drop by 11%.

For example, here is the current situation where a standard consult for a pensioner is conducted:

Medicare Rebate ($36.30) + bulk-billing incentive ($6.60) = $42.90

And here are the proposed changes:

If no co-payment is charged then total income for consult is:

Medicare rebate ($31.30) = $31.30

If co-payment is charged:

Medicare rebate ($31.30) and low-gap incentive ($6.60) and co-payment ($2.00) = $39.90

As a general practitioner who runs a small business, these reductions
in income have the potential to make the business unviable. My practice
is considering its options but it is likely that we will simply have to
charge concessional patients a gap of approximately $11 to maintain
business viability (this will essentially keep our income stable). We
are exploring other options such as reducing the duration of consults
from 15 minutes to 12 minutes or reducing the number of supporting
staff, but these options all have a negative impact on patient care.

What types of patients will this co-payment affect the most?
Do you expect certain types of patients to visit their doctor less
often?

This will have the most impact on patients who have chronic illness.
In particular; the elderly, those with mental illness, diabetes, high
blood pressure and children with recurrent infections. The impact will
depend on how the medical profession and medical practices change their
fee structure after the changes are introduced. It is unclear whether
the large bulk-billing organisations such as Primary Health Care will
continue to bulk-bill or whether they will charge the co-payment. I
suspect that the overall impact of these changes will be much more
severe than expected as many general practices like mine will change
from conducting ‘mixed-billing’ (bulk-billing concessional patients and
charging gap for non-concessional patients) to conducting private (gap)
billing for all patients.

What types of illnesses and conditions will people suffer from more severely if they don’t see their GP as often?

Chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension, asthma, heart
disease and those with mental illness are likely to be the hardest hit.

I also expect that some diseases will be picked up later. For
example, a woman with a minor breast symptom who delays having it
checked and it ultimately is found to be a breast cancer.

Another example is that if a patient reports an unusual mole early
and it is excised and found to be an early melanoma, there is very
little risk of the cancer spreading and cure is usual. However, if the
melanoma is diagnosed after spreading, it is generally regarded as
incurable and the costs of newer chemotherapies for melanoma are
astronomical in comparison.

What affect do you think the GP co-payments will have on the
overall health of the community and on the health budget bottom line?

There is likely to be a negative effect on general health in the
community. I suspect that we will see some diseases that have been
declining in severity, such as heart attacks or advanced breast cancer,
either plateau or even increase in frequency.

I suspect the health budget will largely be unchanged, as while there
will be a reduced number of general practice consultations and
pathology/imaging rebates, there will be an increase in the number of
more advanced diseases. There will probably be some cost-shifting as the
more advanced cancers and heart disease will be cared for through the
hospital system, whereas there will be less costs coming from general
practice.

Do you think it was responsible of the Abbott government to
use the revenue from the GP co-payment to build a future fund to fund
scientific health research?

Increased funding for research is sorely needed. If there is a
co-payment then I would support its proceeds going to research, however,
I believe this funding should go to non-corporate research such as
through the CSIRO or universities. I am concerned that corporate grants
will be given for research by pharmaceutical companies that do not need
government support.

The funding to the states for the provision of hospital care should
also be increased if the co-payment is introduced as the further demand
will outstrip already limited services in our public hospitals.

So there we have it. Not only some much needed facts, but clear
analysis that shows the government haven’t thought through this policy.
Either that, or they have and they don’t care about the detrimental
impacts on our community. Sigh.

TRUST TONY ABBOTT

THE LNP ( LIARS NATIONAL PARTY )

PM Abbott’s top 40 broken promises and blatant hypocrisies — so far

Alan Austin 24 May 2014, 2:30pm 45

Politics

(Image by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au)

Alan Austin updates IA's running tally of hypocrisies and broken promises by Australia's most mendacious ever prime minister — Tony Abbott.

The one positive to emerge from the most destructive budget in
Australia’s post-war history is that it has silenced all those claiming
Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are honourable men.

No-one can now claim they are governing in the nation’s interest.
No-one can assert they tell the truth. No-one can deny that they have
broken multiple promises.

As recently as 3 May, Rupert Murdoch’s mendacious national paper The Australian ran a story headed

‘Abbott didn’t break any promises’.

Here at Independent Australia, however, 25 specific broken commitments were documented in early February.

The Murdoch media have now changed tack: Okay, Abbott and Hockey have broken a few dozen promises. But who cares?

They are pushing this line quite openly now, with headlines such as ‘Our futile fascination with broken promises’ in the Daily Telegraph.

On the positive side, Fairfax publications have broken ranks with Murdoch and are calling the shattered assurances for what they are.

So, what is the official IA tally of broken promises and blatant hypocrisies?

Chris speaks on Tony Abbott's Budget of Broken Promises

The first 13 were documented in November.

The next 12 were detailed here in February.

They related to:

1. There have been no broken promises

2. Respecting a government’s mandate

3. Freedom of information

4. Toowoomba Range bypass plan

5. Reporting the budget position

6. Justifying the debt ceiling

7. Reducing the nation’s debt

8. Returning the budget to surplus

9. The UN Security Council seat

10. Foreign minister’s first trip abroad

11. Relations with the region

12. National broadband network

13. Stopping the boats

14. Spending his first week with the Yolngu

Tony Abbott lies about spending first week as PM with Indigenous people

15. Open and accountable government

16. Cuts to pensions

17. School attendances

18. Government job for Sophie Mirabella

19. No deals with the Greens

20. ABC and SBS funding

21. Subsidies to industries

22. Monitoring whaling

23. Increased funds for aid agencies

24. Entering Indonesia waters

25. We will not tow back the boats

That list has been expanded with several bizarre decisions, some Abbott took with no consultation with cabinet colleagues.

Knights and Dames

26. No knighthoods for Australia

In December 2013 Abbott ruled out reinstating the archaic regal gongs, saying:

“I just don't think that's realistic in this country.”

Thirteen weeks later, Abbot reinstated knighthoods.

27. No public servants to be forced out of work

Abbott was explicit before the election: “no forced redundancies”.

In Parliament, however, it was disclosed that Department of Industry employees have been forced out.

28. Incarcerating children offshore

In 2012, Opposition shadow treasurer Joe Hockey – now treasurer – actually wept in Parliament over this outrageous idea:

“I will never ever support a people swap where you can send a
13-year-old child unaccompanied to a country without supervision —
never! It will be over my dead body. How dare people!”

Joe Hockey - Speech on Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012

Now in power, the Abbott Government is sending children, including those with no family, into imprisonment at Nauru and Manus Island.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison told a November 2013 press conference:

“… it doesn’t matter whether you’re a child, it doesn’t matter
whether you’re pregnant, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a woman, it
doesn’t matter whether you’re an unaccompanied minor, it doesn’t matter
if you have a health condition, if you’re fit enough to get on a boat
then you can expect you’re fit enough to end up in offshore processing.”

The list of smashed promises expanded substantially when last week’s budget broke Abbott’s few remaining pre-election pledges:

"No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS."

29. No cuts to education

The promise was explicit: that Labor’s funding under the Gonski reforms would be matched and “no school would be worse off” over the next four years.

In the Budget, however, school funding rises by just $54.1m in 2017-18, which effectively freezes school funding at the 2017 level in real terms.

30. Raising university fees

Education Minister Christopher Pyne was adamant on Sky News in November 2013:

“We’re not going to raise fees. I’m not even considering it because we promised that we wouldn’t.”

No Cuts, No Fees, No Corporate Universities - Students NDA against budget (Melbourne)

The budget slashed
funding for university courses and exposed students to huge debt
increases with the removal of caps on fees universities can charge.

31. No cuts to health

In August, Abbott said:

“I am giving an absolute commitment that the overall levels of health funding will be maintained."

The budget announced,
however, that hospital funding agreements with the states and
territories under Labor will be wound back from 2017, cutting a massive
$50 billion over eight years.

32. Closing Medicare locals

Before the election, Abbott was explicit in response to a direct question:

"We are not shutting any Medicare Locals."

The budget announced that the entire network of 61 community health centres will be scrapped.

33. Funding on direct action

According to Climate Spectator, the budget shows annual funding allocations from 2014-15 to 2017-18 for the government’s centrepiece climate change program

'... are $1.4 billion lower, or less than half, what the Coalition had promised before the 2013 Federal Election.'

34. Consultancy spending to be cut

Abbott in opposition repeatedly promised to cut spending by

“... vastly reducing the number of consultancies ...”

The May budget allocates a staggering $91 million to pay consultants from the top end of town for their advice on the sale of Medibank Private.

35. Aboriginal land rights

At the Garma festival in north-east Arnhem Land last August Abbott promised to

“... do whatever I humanly can in government to bring this [improved land rights for Aboriginal people] about."

As funding for research and for legal aid for land claims across
Australia is critical, all Aboriginal land claimants were looking
expectantly at the May budget.

They got nothing.

36. No new taxes

The deficit levy imposes an extra 2% tax on all income above $180,000 a year.

37. Using the state of the economy as an excuse for breaking promises

Melbourne ABC Radio host Jon Faine
challenged Abbott directly on the likelihood he would blame the state
of the economy for changing his policies after the election.

Abbott denied this possibility point blank:

"It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should
not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite
afterwards.”

Yet after the election Abbott has done precisely that. Forty times.

38. This will be a government of no surprises

The New Daily:

The one secret they didn’t tell us before the budget is that the
Federal government plans to save $80 billion over the next ten years by
giving the states less money to run our schools and hospitals.

The other big surprise in this budget is that, over the government’s first four years, it makes hardly any net savings at all.

39. The burden will be shared evenly

Tony Abbott: You Don't Have To Lie To Get Elected But It Helps

Abbott and Hockey repeatedly said that the heavy lifting would be shared across the community.

All reliable analysis shows that, in contrast, the poor are hit hardest – losing as much as 10% of their income – while the rich are barely slugged at all.

40. Families should be off limits in politics

Abbott and his wife shamelessly exploited their three daughters
through the 2013 election campaign to construct the perception that
theirs was a functional nuclear family.

Now, with daughter Frances in the spotlight over what appears on the surface to be corrupt payments for her degree, Abbott declares:

“I think family should be off-limits when it comes to party political contention."

That’s 40 broken promises and blatant hypocrisies. In just 37 weeks.

Questions arising include these:

Has there ever been a government in any modern democracy with a record of duplicity this extensive so soon in a term of office?

What do Abbott’s colleagues make of this tawdry performance? How long
before Abbott is challenged by Malcolm Turnbull or another ambitious
starter?

Meanwhile, what does it do to the nation’s moral standing and sense
of pride and confidence to have a proven liar and conman as elected
leader?

Yes, Prime Minister - You lied - The Tangled Web

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License